Tozzi noted that in Neale's Witness Statement, it says Coughlan had told him Mike Gascoyne (Technical Director of Spyker) had been at the same restaurant when he met Nigel. This backs up the comment Stepney made in an interview with the Sunday Times earlier this year where he said the meeting had been "witnessed by Gascoyne".

The question I have is, given that this information was written down in a statement and that the meeting in question was a key part of the case against McLaren (a meeting in which Ferrari alleges the 780 page dossier was handed over), would it not have made sense for someone within the FIA to have asked Gascoyne about what happened on that day? Either in a sworn statement, or in person in Paris?

A third party has been brought into the equation, one who currently works for a team that earlier this year jumped head-first into it's own espionage scandal with Toro Rosso. And nobody thought to ask that third party any questions?

We noted concerns yesterday that the hearing seemed rushed. Why the apparent hurry? Is it simply Formula 1 wanting to get back to racing as soon as possible, or is it more than that?

The deadline for McLaren's appeal against the FIA ruling, is 5pm today. What would you do if you were Ron and what do you think he means when he says he's seeking "closure"?